At 10:54 AM 2/12/2004, avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com wrote:
On 1 dec 2004, at 22.35, Sam Hartman wrote:
I had sort of assumed this BCP would be the MOU to the extent that one
existed.
I think that there has to be an equivalent document on the ISOC side as
indicated by Geoff, i.e. a document indicating acceptance of the BCP as
governing the relationship. And these documents should take effect at
essentially the same time.
Since, ISOC, under current rules, if I understand them correctly, needs to
approve BCP's that change IETF processes, it should be easy for the two
documents to be approved, and thus put into effect, simultaneously.
Perhaps there should be wording in this document indicating how and when
it takes effect.
The usual course of events, as I understand them, would be for the Board of
ISOC to accept the BCP's defined role for ISOC by resolution. The
definition of ISOC's role would be defined either by reference to the BCP
document, or by reference to an extract from that document that just
specifies ISOC's role. Of course precisely how ISOC chooses implements this
is beyond he scope of this particular discussion, but I don't believe that
there is, a priori, a need for multiple documents here.
regards,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf